. and so, the strategic use of deviations in a plan, overpopulate and under populate or specifically advantage some parts of the state at the expense of others would be a problem, even for non-congressional districts. now, the problem is, as i said in large versus cox is that this was a partisan gerrymander that selectively used this to punish political adversaries. but that doesn't mean partisan gerrymanders or partisanship in general is unconstitutional and as a factor in the redistricting process. instead, the supreme court has actually resigned itself to the fact that partisanship will often be an extremely important factor in the redistricting process. and in gaffney versus cummings, it upheld a bipartisan gerrymander. so the intent of the connecticut redistricting plan in that case was to create districts that were safe for democrats and republicans. and so, the idea was, it was -- say 50% democratic state, 50% republican state, that if you -- they drew districts that would be 50% -- half the districts might be democrat. half the districts would be republican, and as a result,